If you’re rolling your eyes at the over-the-top accusations made by local left wing advocates against moderate candidates in this election cycle, you’re not alone. The Opp Now team analyzes how local lefty advocates are, in fact, cribbing Big Lie tactics from The Trump Team in their unhinged 2022 campaign schemes. An Opp Now Exclusive.
There’s technique to dissembling—especially in the political realm. And the recent spate of falsehoods from local progressive candidates and advocates reveals that they’re taking their cues from none other than Liar Par Excellence, Donald Trump. In fact, close analysis of left wing campaign swipes against moderates Matt Mahan, Johnny Khamis, and Irene Smith reveals a surprising adherence to the Trump Playbook.
Rule #1: Make up a lie your base really wants to believe—a really big lie. Trump’s immediate response to 2020 election results was to claim that the results were false and that his victory had been stolen. This lie served the purpose of confirming the existing biases of some of his supporters, allowing them to demonize their opponents. The same phenomenon is playing out locally, as left wing advocates float clearly false charges against moderates around hot button issues in an effort to validate their supporters’ pre-existing biases. Check it out: Matt Mahan, who is clearly pro-choice and in favor of aggressive gun control, is accused of being anti-choice and pro-gun. Irene Smith’s straight-ahead, comparative mailer outlining policy differences between her and Omar Torres is contorted beyond recognition to somehow reveal nefarious, hidden racist tropes. And Johnny Khamis after being accused—surreally— of causing the COVID pandemic, has been inaccurately positioned as a lifelong Republican—which he clearly isn’t.
Rule #2: Repeat the lie. Again. And again. Big lies require constant reinforcement, because otherwise, their obvious falsehoods will sweep them out of the public square. It’s been over two years since Trump lost the presidential election, but he is still out there on the stump trying to Stop the Steal. On the local level, repetition does not spoil the lie: Multiple flyers from Labor have told falsehoods about Khamis’ political history. Inaccurate presentation of Mahan’s gun and abortion positions have been the subject of multiple online ads from various sources. And in Irene Smith’s case, a local labor-funded online news site has joined the fun: absurdly extending the false racism charge with a series of poorly formulated op-eds whose arguments have been demolished in local social media.
Rule #3: Ignore counter-narrative facts. One of the most amusing devices of the Trump School of Fibbing is to blithely pass over evidence that disproves the lie. For over two years, Trump simply waved away overwhelming evidence from multiple states that his claims of electoral shenanigans were fantasy. Similarly, Mahan’s opponents never entertain—even to argue against them—the long history of his public positions supporting choice and gun control. Khamis’ opponents never discuss his long (and current) independent political status. And the cabal attacking Smith can’t face up to overwhelming common sense, and expert proof that their interpretations of her mailer are off the wall.
This year’s tsunami of transparently false information from the local left begs an explanation. The charges are so extreme, so outlandish, so clearly false, that they backfire and elevate the targets of their wrath. So how does that make sense? Psychologists may offer an explanation.
In the Scientific American, psychologist Jeremy Smith examines the concept of the “Blue Lie.” It’s unlike a “White Lie” (which is a fib designed to advance a positive good) or a “Black Lie” (which is designed to advance a selfish goal). “A ‘Blue Lie,'” Smith says, “is a psychologist’s term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen bonds among the members of that group.”
Under Smith’s formulation, local left wing electoral shenanigans aren’t about persuading anyone of anything; rather, they’re about creating a cohesive tribal connection with an existing group, hungry for a common enemy and a need to feel social and ethical distinctiveness. Put another way, the local left is just looking for their own Emmanuel Goldstein and their own Two Minutes of Hate.
“Blue lies are weapons in intergroup conflict,” Smith concludes. “Lying and bloodshed are often framed as crimes when committed inside a group—but as virtues in a state of war.
“This research highlights a difficult truth about our species: we are intensely social creatures, but we are prone to divide ourselves into competitive groups, largely for the purpose of allocating resources. People can be prosocial—compassionate, empathetic, generous, honest—in their group and aggressively antisocial toward out-groups. When we divide people into groups, we open the door to competition, dehumanization, violence—and socially sanctioned deceit.”
Read the whole Scientific American article here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Image by Wikimedia Commons